Diflo testified that he explained the risks and the patient insisted on keeping the kidney
Liew, 46, said Friday was a "very difficult day,
Artificial pumpkin waiting for the verdict. I thought I was going to win the case."
After the jury announced that Diflo did not commit medical malpractice and awarded Liew no damages, she was stunned.
"I didn't know what was going on," Liew said. "I asked my sister-in-law sitting with me, 'Is that the verdict?' and she said, 'Yeah, you lost the case.'"
The verdict marked the end of a long, sad journey. Liew's 37-year-old husband was her life partner and they did everything together, from mundane housework to hanging out at Starbucks to taking vacations.
After his death, "It was very difficult," she recalled, crying. "I became sick. I went to the doctor many times and they couldn't find any diagnosis. My pastor's wife said I needed therapy and she helped me."
Diflo testified that he explained the risks and the patient insisted on keeping the kidney, but the widow disputes that.
The kidney was removed in August, and he died a month later. "I'm thinking how long would he have lived if [Diflo] removed it [right away]," she said wistfully.
She launched her long crusade to sue shortly after her husband died, but says her first lawyer botched the case.
She then went to lawyer Daniel Buttafuoco in 2008.
Liew was seeking $3 million for her husband's pain and suffering. She insists it wasn't about the money, but her husband's message.
"I went to dinner with my family last night,
Artificial pumpkin and everybody felt sorry about the verdict," she said, "but Vincent always said, 'God never makes mistakes,' and if He allowed the verdict, I have to accept it. Maybe He has a better future for me."
阅读(150) | 评论(0) | 转发(0) |
